Perhaps it is time for the United Nations and the international community to take a fresh look at the role of professional security agencies in preventing conflict and promoting peace.
When civilian politicians take power through elections, there is sometimes a dangerous misunderstanding of the relationship between political leadership and security institutions.
Some may begin to see the police, military and other lawful security agencies simply as servants of the government of the day—institutions expected to carry out every instruction given to them.
Sadly, security institutions themselves may sometimes come to understand their role in the same way.
But a professional security agency is not established to serve an individual, a political party or a particular administration.
Its fundamental responsibility is to serve the • nation,
• the Constitution,
• the law and
• the legitimate security interests of the people.
Where the law requires allegiance to the Head of State, that allegiance must be understood within the constitutional and legal framework that defines the powers and responsibilities of that office.
This distinction matters greatly for peace.
Think about what happens whenever
- human security is threatened.
- When an individual is assaulted,
-robbed
- or unlawfully deprived of their rights,
security agencies are often among the first institutions called upon to respond.
- When organized crime threatens a community,
they investigate and intervene.
- When one nation believes another has violated its security or territorial interests, security institutions are often the first to
gather information,
assess the threat
and establish what actually happened.
In many ways, security agencies are among humanity's first witnesses when peace is threatened.
Their work should therefore be understood not merely as enforcing the wishes of those currently in political office, but as protecting the legal order ( Nationally and Internationally) within which governments themselves operate.
This does not mean that security agencies should become political actors or replace elected civilian institutions.
Quite the opposite. Their professionalism requires them to remain within the Constitution and the law, while civilian authorities retain their LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL responsibilities.
But it also means that security agencies should be SUFFICIENTLY PROFESSIONAL, INDEPENDENT and ACCOUNTABLE to tell the truth about security realities—even when that truth is inconvenient to those in power.
At the international level, there may also be opportunities for security institutions from different countries to communicate professionally, verify facts, prevent misunderstandings and de-escalate tensions before political disagreements become armed conflicts.
Their professional assessments and lawful cooperation should not automatically be dismissed simply because they do not originate from politicians.
If in their opinion they agree to give the two sides more time to ion out differences, the civilian authority should not mistake it for rebellion or usurping their power.
Peace is not created only in presidential offices, parliamentary chambers or diplomatic meetings.
It is also protected every day by the people and institutions entrusted with maintaining law and order.
Perhaps the world needs to see security agencies not simply as instruments of power, but as guardians of constitutional order, public safety and peace—institutions whose professionalism, integrity, accountability and lawful judgment can help prevent conflicts before they become wars.
The goal should never be security agencies ruling society.
Neither should it be politicians commanding security institutions as personal instruments.
The goal should be lawful civilian government working with professional, accountable security institutions to protect people, uphold the rule of law and preserve peace.
Elijah Mutua Kirima.
Social Worker.
THE WORD OF GOD IS THE WILL OF GOD.
No comments:
Post a Comment